admitting to a coach you made a mistake

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by mbyron

So his recommended mechanic was: let L sell the call. As T or C, get in the habit of doing 2 things: (1) hold your signal on a double whistle, and (2) when your partner sells his call, nod vigorously, as if that's what you had too.

We were thinking alike on this one except for the nodding part. Are you serious about nodding vigorously? I'm simply not going to do this; it seems silly to me and could come off planned/fake.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by tomegun

We were thinking alike on this one except for the nodding part. Are you serious about nodding vigorously? I'm simply not going to do this; it seems silly to me and could come off planned/fake.

Doesn't have to be vigorous. The clinician was making a point: T or C needs to go along with whatever L is selling. I'm sure the nodding is optional.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

The clinician was making a point: T or C needs to go along with whatever L is selling.

T or C should go along with whatever the lead is selling, even if they strenuously disagree, just because the lead made the preliminary signal. Unless T or C had made a preliminary signal of their own, in which case they now can't go along with the lead, even if after reviewing it quickly, they were so inclined. I got one word for this.

Ridiculous

[walter]

Originally Posted by just another ref

T or C should go along with whatever the lead is selling, even if they strenuously disagree, just because the lead made the preliminary signal. Unless T or C had made a preliminary signal of their own, in which case they now can't go along with the lead, even if after reviewing it quickly, they were so inclined. I got one word for this.

Ridiculous

At the four camps I attended this play was discussed quite a bit. All the clinicians, however, agreed on one common principal, if two different preliminaries are given on a block/charge situation, it is a double foul and both players are penalized. They all stressed that is why the T and C should do everything they can to refrain from giving a preliminary signal when there is a double whistle on these situations. They all agreed the prelim, if given, should come from the lead.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

T or C should go along with whatever the lead is selling, even if they strenuously disagree, just because the lead made the preliminary signal. Unless T or C had made a preliminary signal of their own, in which case they now can't go along with the lead, even if after reviewing it quickly, they were so inclined. I got one word for this.

Ridiculous

Originally Posted by walter

At the four camps I attended this play was discussed quite a bit. All the clinicians, however, agreed on one common principal, if two different preliminaries are given on a block/charge situation, it is a double foul and both players are penalized. They all stressed that is why the T and C should do everything they can to refrain from giving a preliminary signal when there is a double whistle on these situations. They all agreed the prelim, if given, should come from the lead.

No matter who said it, it is still ridiculous, not to mention unnecessary. For those who do feel compelled to abide by this principle, you could eliminate preliminary signals altogether. What real purpose do they serve?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

No matter who said it, it is still ridiculous, not to mention unnecessary. For those who do feel compelled to abide by this principle, you could eliminate preliminary signals altogether. What real purpose do they serve?

The purpose they serve has to do with not only the tradition of the game, but some fouls could be on either the offense or defense and I doubt that it would be acceptable to not make a block/charge call by only reporting this to the table. But in all other situations I have no problem with the elimination or a modification of using preliminary signals in many cases. Not all, but many.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

No matter who said it, it is still ridiculous, not to mention unnecessary. For those who do feel compelled to abide by this principle, you could eliminate preliminary signals altogether. What real purpose do they serve?

They tell the rest of the crew what is coming next. They communicate the call to the teams....so they can make substitutions if necessary since they may not have time if they wait until it is reported it. It doesn't keep everyone in suspense on tough plays giving some the chance to think that the pleading of the coaches/players caused you to change your call on the way to the table.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by just another ref

No matter who said it, it is still ridiculous, not to mention unnecessary. For those who do feel compelled to abide by this principle, you could eliminate preliminary signals altogether. What real purpose do they serve?

On several occasions, I have seen this and it could have been avoided if the officials had simply called in their area. Seeing entire plays, without anticipating, is one thing that will help avoid this situation as well as understanding situations where you may have to come out of your primary to get something. Didn't this whole thing start when two D1 officials were two stubborn to give a call up, at least one of which was spraying calls all over the court?

[walter]

Another little tidbit from camps was the discussion that a double whistle can be either one official reaching and getting something or a "confirmation whistle, especially down the stretch". In fact one camp stressed that in close games down the stretch, "confirmation whistles" are good things. Don't necessarily agree but wanted to know if anyone else heard this at camp?

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Doesn't have to be vigorous. The clinician was making a point: T or C needs to go along with whatever L is selling. I'm sure the nodding is optional.

OK, so now that you've said (typed) what someone told you, do you agree with the nodding part? Do you do it or plan on doing it?

I still think it is corny.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tomegun

OK, so now that you've said (typed) what someone told you, do you agree with the nodding part? Do you do it or plan on doing it?

I still think it is corny.

I can only speak for myself on what works for me. I will not nod just for the purpose to make everyone know I agree with the call of my partner, but I will nod when talking to a coach to get them to understand what I am saying to them. But that is a little different than doing so after a call you are not participating in. I do nod if my partner and I have a double whistle and I only do it to acknowledge that we have the same thing or that someone has the call. Usually this is followed by some verbal exchange or comment about who is going to the table.

Peace

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I can only speak for myself on what works for me. I will not nod just for the purpose to make everyone know I agree with the call of my partner, but I will nod when talking to a coach to get them to understand what I am saying to them. But that is a little different than doing so after a call you are not participating in. I do nod if my partner and I have a double whistle and I only do it to acknowledge that we have the same thing or that someone has the call. Usually this is followed by some verbal exchange or comment about who is going to the table.

Peace

No, I'm not talking about what you do in practice. I'm talking about a double whistle between partners and one feels obligated to nod as a way of telling everyone he/she had the same thing even if they didn't. It just sounds silly to me. Have I ever nodded on a basketball court? Yes. Will I nod just because I have a double whistle with my partner? Not a chance. If it is something that comes naturally, I will do it. I will leave the acting to someone else.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tomegun

No, I'm not talking about what you do in practice. I'm talking about a double whistle between partners and one feels obligated to nod as a way of telling everyone he/she had the same thing even if they didn't. It just sounds silly to me. Have I ever nodded on a basketball court? Yes. Will I nod just because I have a double whistle with my partner? Not a chance. If it is something that comes naturally, I will do it. I will leave the acting to someone else.

I do not do anything for acting purposes; I do what I do for communication purposes. Because many times a partner cannot hear me, I might do something to get them to understand me. Honestly I never really thought of it that much until I read this here. I only do something to communicate better, not to put on an act or do something artificial. That being said, I have no problem with your position or your reasoning. Not everything one person does works for another person. That is the nature of what we do.

Peace